Posted 26 Apr 2017 by
adrianxw
I've no idea which they were, but a very quick look at my results page reveals further examples...
217520576 213480690 19176 24 Apr 2017, 1:33:58 UTC 24 Apr 2017, 1:53:58 UTC Completed and validated 747.97 725.47 30.00 Riesel Base v0.20
218078215 214021622 19176 24 Apr 2017, 1:28:40 UTC 24 Apr 2017, 1:41:30 UTC Completed and validated 746.13 724.38 60.00 Sierpinski / Riesel Base - average v0.20
... here, for example, are two units that were adjacent on my results page. Their CPU times are less than two seconds different, yet one gets twice the credit as the other. You see one is Riesel, the other Sierpinski and your view point may be this is totally reasonable. To me, I see one job has used the same time as the other, but gets twice the credit.
Posted 25 Apr 2017 by
adrianxw
It is interesting isn't it. You look at it from your point of view and see nothing wrong, I look at the same figures from my point of view and see nothing right.
It seems clear we will not be able to resolve it, so I will detatch, end of issue. I had only atatched this machine, so it is easy for me to do this.
Good luck with your project.
Posted 24 Apr 2017 by
adrianxw
What I am talking about is the actual amount of CPU time the jobs have used. Sticking to the examples I quoted above, four of the jobs used 700+ CPU seconds and got credited 30, and the other used nearly 500 seconds and got credited 60. What the job actually did is not really a factor.
Posted 24 Apr 2017 by
adrianxw
What the job is doing is not the issue, you have used my system. Credit should reflect the amount of work actually done. It does not appear to be the case.
Posted 23 Apr 2017 by
adrianxw
Ah, errrm, glad that is all clear now ----- not.
Posted 23 Apr 2017 by
adrianxw
Credit granted seems unrelated to work done.
Examples...
751.51 694.75 30.00
499.31 450.13 60.00
734.21 690.28 30.00
715.04 685.98 30.00
724.05 680.55 30.00